|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 3, 2016 21:17:16 GMT
Looks pretty draconian, but I for one am utterly unsurprised... link
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 3, 2016 22:41:42 GMT
Looks pretty draconian, but I for one am utterly unsurprised... linkWow - I wonder what sits behind that. There seems to be three themes (to my "not very knowledgeable about Surrey buses" eye) 1. Cross boundary routes into Greater London. Wonder if the Hopper ticket is a step too far for Abellio's "Oyster Match" fare plus the looming prospect of the ULEZ being London wide? Better to get out now than wait and see. 2. Routes into Heathrow - wonder if reducing support from HAL has proved the death knell here? It was mentioned in the context of First Berkshire's "changes". 3. Routes which may have oldish contracts with Surrey CC and which may not reflect current cost levels. While it's obviously Surrey CC's immediate concern you have to wonder who will be able to take on the scale of work Abellio are abandoning. If SCC can't fill the gaps then the problems in some places land on TfL's doorstep and I can't see it being terribly keen to stick on a new service along the Portsmouth Road out to Esher (or beyond) or filling in local links lost with the 514/515. Things aren't so bad between Staines and Heathrow as the 441 will continue so perhaps TfL don't need to worry. The 555 presents issues for workers into Heathrow and while not directly TfL's concern its removal may have consequences on the 216 / 235 / 203.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Sept 3, 2016 23:28:50 GMT
I don't think SCC are going to be able to fill the gaps here. They have spent the last five years painstakingly unpicking and re-twining corridors in an attempt to keep an acceptable level of service provision in the context of a shrinking budget and this blows a huge hole in the hard work made to keep things going in West Surrey. This looks like Abellio's "Arriva 2000" moment. BAA will be under pressure from airport workers to supply some sort of service out to Walton so I do see the 555 surviving, if in a reduced format. What happens south and west of Walton is anyone's guess.
I am curious as to what has spurred Abellio on to give up on these routes altogether - it seems a dramatic move, especially in the case of the supported routes. Have Abellio actually been in extended contact with SCC's transport department prior to making this decision? If not it is a funny sort of gamble to pit yourself against a major income source, and if so it is a bleak sign of SCC's unwillingness to make any movement with regards to support levels, so I wouldn't hold out great hopes in terms of what the replacement services will look like. No prospect of a reduced service has been mooted on these routes, Abellio have just decided to drop the ball and walk. I really do wonder why. There just isn't the money in the transport budget, period, political and stakeholder pressure notwithstanding, and I think SCC are going to be remarkably stubborn when it comes to shelling out to support replacements.
It is a sorry situation. I don't see any other commercial operator looking at the network with any thoughts of giving it a go, with the possible exception of Buses Excetera, and maybe then in a reduced form at best. The territory is just too difficult, as has been proven time and time again. Abellio have clearly decided that revenue and support do not cover costs - a look at their faretables (which they are unusually candid with) is a giveaway here - the fares are high for the distances involved.
It will not reflect well on TfL that they are prepared to fund routes from Kingston that go well beyond the TfL boundary (465 especially) but refuse to touch routes heading into Thames Ditton, Esher and Walton. Bluntly I don't think it can or should be TfL's problem, but they are going to come under serious pressure because of this to do 'something'.
I think the fallout from this is going to get messy.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Sept 3, 2016 23:52:13 GMT
James Cannon's breakfast show on BBC Surrey yesterday morning talks about this and wider bus cuts across the county throughout - fast forward to 1:13 for the North West Surrey Bus User Group response, and on to 2:12 for a response from Surrey County Council's Portfolio Holder for Environment & Infrastructure, Cllr Goodman. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04559yf
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 5, 2016 9:57:37 GMT
I don't think SCC are going to be able to fill the gaps here. They have spent the last five years painstakingly unpicking and re-twining corridors in an attempt to keep an acceptable level of service provision in the context of a shrinking budget and this blows a huge hole in the hard work made to keep things going in West Surrey. This looks like Abellio's "Arriva 2000" moment. BAA will be under pressure from airport workers to supply some sort of service out to Walton so I do see the 555 surviving, if in a reduced format. What happens south and west of Walton is anyone's guess. I would agree with all this. I suspect Abellio have been talking to SCC for many months. Half the trouble is many of the routes Abellio are dropping seem to carry little but fresh air most of the time (exceptions seem to be 555 and the eastern ends of the 458 and 514). I've said before that in Elmbridge you are generally looked upon with pity if you use anything apart from a car. Car rules. Car rules even above being a pedestrian, so what hope do buses have? I doubt that Buses Excetera will have any interest in the dropped routes. I do fear that most of the routes Abellio are dropping will die, I'm afraid. TfL will come under pressure here, yes. Their own financial situation though is such that again I'll be surprised if they do anything much. A section of Portsmouth Road will lose its bus service here, so maybe a replacement for the 458 over that section down to Esher might happen. If TfL feel particularly flush, they may take that service on to Cobham, and possibly source a replacement for the Molesey/Walton part of the 514. A sad time for Surrey public transport
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 5, 2016 12:30:43 GMT
Having listened to the radio broadcasts that thesquirrels linked to it's clear to me that there is a significant problem. The SCC man said they'd had to pay Abellio some extra money in the short term to get them through to December. That shows something is seriously wrong. The other point SCC man said was that the cuts to date had not impacted a high percentage of trips on the network. Clearly the policy stance is pretty "hard ball" and it's a process of managed attrition. I detected very little sympathy for people complaining about cuts. The message was "use the buses or they go" because the Council has other higher statutory priorities like social care. There was absolutely no recognition whatsoever of other policy links or potential benefits in having a better bus service in Surrey. I assume there's no recognition of this because to do so would create spending demands that cannot be met. I agree that there is likely to be a decisive reduction in the bus network come Jan 2017 because no one else will step in and the Council has next to no room for manoeuvre. I'm sceptical as to what TfL can afford to do. There's more than one possible issue for them to deal with which complicates matters considerably. The 514's rerouting saw TfL faff with the 965 which offers a negligible level of service on the Greater London roads it was diverted to cover. There's not even an obvious lowish frequency route terminating in Kingston that could be sent down the Portsmouth Rd to give a service. A completely mad idea could see the 467 extended on from Hook, down the bypass to Hinchley Wood and then up the Portsmouth Rd into Kingston. That's lowish frequency and M-S only and London United might well have a spare, largely depreciated double decker or two sitting around to run an extended service. Given the 467 has long stand times I reckon only 1 extra bus would be needed for an extension into Kingston.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 5, 2016 13:41:27 GMT
Having listened to the radio broadcasts that thesquirrels linked to it's clear to me that there is a significant problem. The SCC man said they'd had to pay Abellio some extra money in the short term to get them through to December. That shows something is seriously wrong. The other point SCC man said was that the cuts to date had not impacted a high percentage of trips on the network. Clearly the policy stance is pretty "hard ball" and it's a process of managed attrition. I detected very little sympathy for people complaining about cuts. The message was "use the buses or they go" because the Council has other higher statutory priorities like social care. There was absolutely no recognition whatsoever of other policy links or potential benefits in having a better bus service in Surrey. I assume there's no recognition of this because to do so would create spending demands that cannot be met. I agree that there is likely to be a decisive reduction in the bus network come Jan 2017 because no one else will step in and the Council has next to no room for manoeuvre. I'm sceptical as to what TfL can afford to do. There's more than one possible issue for them to deal with which complicates matters considerably. The 514's rerouting saw TfL faff with the 965 which offers a negligible level of service on the Greater London roads it was diverted to cover. There's not even an obvious lowish frequency route terminating in Kingston that could be sent down the Portsmouth Rd to give a service. A completely mad idea could see the 467 extended on from Hook, down the bypass to Hinchley Wood and then up the Portsmouth Rd into Kingston. That's lowish frequency and M-S only and London United might well have a spare, largely depreciated double decker or two sitting around to run an extended service. Given the 467 has long stand times I reckon only 1 extra bus would be needed for an extension into Kingston. Problem with that is Portsmouth Road has a low bridge so unless diverted around said bridge, it would have to be a single decker route.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 5, 2016 13:47:06 GMT
Problem with that is Portsmouth Road has a low bridge so unless diverted around said bridge, it would have to be a single decker route. You live and learn! Shouldn't be an issue to convert the 467 to single decks with a DD covering school trips but that would be an added complication to the timetable. On the one ride I had on it a single decker could easily have coped.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 5, 2016 18:29:08 GMT
Problem with that is Portsmouth Road has a low bridge so unless diverted around said bridge, it would have to be a single decker route. You live and learn! Shouldn't be an issue to convert the 467 to single decks with a DD covering school trips but that would be an added complication to the timetable. On the one ride I had on it a single decker could easily have coped. 467 is rarely busy : single decks would cope much of the time. Nice idea, snoggle. I agree : there are not a lot of other TfL routes in Kingston that could be extended to cover the cuts. I suppose you could extend the 481 southwards, but it may make it a bit long. You could make a new route by taking the Ham section of the K5 and tacking it onto part of the current 458, 514 or 515. The K5 in its current form is lengthy, and the Morden section of the route may benefit by losing the Kingston to Ham section. Most other routes are either way too frequent, way too long with added extension, or both.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 5, 2016 18:58:05 GMT
You live and learn! Shouldn't be an issue to convert the 467 to single decks with a DD covering school trips but that would be an added complication to the timetable. On the one ride I had on it a single decker could easily have coped. 467 is rarely busy : single decks would cope much of the time. Nice idea, snoggle. I agree : there are not a lot of other TfL routes in Kingston that could be extended to cover the cuts. I suppose you could extend the 481 southwards, but it may make it a bit long. You could make a new route by taking the Ham section of the K5 and tacking it onto part of the current 458, 514 or 515. The K5 in its current form is lengthy, and the Morden section of the route may benefit by losing the Kingston to Ham section. Most other routes are either way too frequent, way too long with added extension, or both. Thank you. I had missed the 481 for some reason. It could be a candidate but it would need more new buses which might be a bit much. I did think about the K5 but don't know it well enough to consider chopping it in bits nor what, if any, carry over there is across Kingston. Otherwise frequency and bus size wise it'd be a decent choice and Epsom Buses always seem to have Optare Solos sloshing around. As you say the other candidates aren't worth considering on cost grounds because frequencies would be too high. I did think about the K4 but envisaged riots taking place if the link to Kingston Hospital was removed. Ironically, thinking about it, RATP running the Unibus services would be well placed to vary one of the Seething Wells routes and extend it out of town if they / the University were minded to copy what other Unibus services have done and open it up to other passengers solely on the Portsmouth Road corridor. TfL could, in theory, object but if it saved them money then why should they? It's not as if there is any TfL competition on that road. My wider ironic thought is that it is a shame that "old fashioned" Metrobus don't exist nowadays. They took a punt on Crawley, Gatwick and Redhill and now have a decent network although it obviously needs some support. There are reasonable ingredients in and around Heathrow, Staines, Walton and further south for them to do a repeat performance but it would need the old management and less control from Go Ahead HQ and I fear those times are now long gone - unfortunately. A Metrobus operation in North Surrey serving Heathrow could have been quite a sight.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 5, 2016 19:35:08 GMT
To me, K5 tends to empty/refill in Kingston from either direction.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Sept 5, 2016 19:40:03 GMT
467 is rarely busy : single decks would cope much of the time. Nice idea, snoggle. I agree : there are not a lot of other TfL routes in Kingston that could be extended to cover the cuts. I suppose you could extend the 481 southwards, but it may make it a bit long. You could make a new route by taking the Ham section of the K5 and tacking it onto part of the current 458, 514 or 515. The K5 in its current form is lengthy, and the Morden section of the route may benefit by losing the Kingston to Ham section. Most other routes are either way too frequent, way too long with added extension, or both. Thank you. I had missed the 481 for some reason. It could be a candidate but it would more new buses which might be a bit much. I did think about the K5 but don't know it well enough to consider chopping it in bits nor what, if any, carry over there is across Kingston. Otherwise frequency and bus size wise it'd be a decent choice and Epsom Buses always seem to have Optare Solos sloshing around. As you say the other candidates aren't worth considering on cost grounds because frequencies would be too high. I did think about the K4 but envisaged riots taking place if the link to Kingston Hospital was removed. Ironically, thinking about it, RATP running the Unibus services would be well placed to vary one of the Seething Wells routes and extend it out of town if they / the University were minded to copy what other Unibus services have done and open it up to other passengers solely on the Portsmouth Road corridor. TfL could, in theory, object but if it saved them money then why should they? It's not as if there is any TfL competition on that road. My wider ironic thought is that it is a shame that "old fashioned" Metrobus don't exist nowadays. They took a punt of Crawley, Gatwick and Redhill and now have a decent network although it obviously needs some support. There are reasonable ingredients in and around Heathrow, Staines, Walton and further south for them to do a repeat performance but it would need the old management and less control from Go Ahead HQ and I fear those times are now long gone - unfortunately. A Metrobus operation in North Surrey serving Heathrow could have been quite a sight. As a resident of Kingston, currently working in Ashford, I will try and fill in some of the queries. The Heathrow part has been subsidised, there is also a free travel zone which makes a commercial fare difficult, a number of companies run shuttles in the area and locals can usually find a free service to the airport. Stanwell is a relatively poor area, it is a bit isolated, and TfL has a number of services to Staines (117, 290 etc) which compete. Therefore if airport is not going to subsidise, unlikely to work commercially. The Portsmouth Road area doesn't have a big population and the K3 runs one road back from the river and parallels it to Thames Ditton. It is a mystery why the K3 doesn't end at the new roundabout behind Seething Wells (which is a few metres from London boundary). The K3 does serve Claygate, and Hinchley Wood, but these are commuter suburbs with a train to London. Inevitably these sort of areas have at least one car per household, and parking is generally free in the area so buses can't really compete. There is also some fare zone oddities in the area such as Thames Ditton station being in travelcard zone 6, even though it is Surrey. Thames Ditton has the big Esher College, and used to serve many Sixth formers from Richmond (who would get bus to Hampton Court with free zip pass then walk), but in last couple of years many Richmond secondary schools have added their own sixth forms. Esher college catchment has therefore spread and no longer as easy to serve it with a fixed bus route. Kingston was for many years a big shopping area (it still is, but apart from Bentall Centre and John Lewis) the rest of the town centre has become relatively unattractive compared to newer centres elsewhere. Walton and Woking have gained their own shopping centres, so fewer people need buses to Kingston. Traffic congestion on the road via Chessington means places like Leatherhead and Cobham have easier drives to Guildford (where many of the shops are same as Kingston). Kingston itself has become rather congested which makes it unattractive for those outside, The road network has become clogged by excessive traffic lights that seem to work against each other, quite common for one light to turn green as next one turns red. In hundreds of journeys I have never got through the Kingston one way system without encountering at least 2 red lights, they seem to be deliberately timed to hold up traffic. The cross border buses to Kingston inevitably suffer from not taking Oyster card holders. When people paid cash they would take whichever bus came first, now what happens is people get on, find they can't use it, get off again, it therefore makes little sense for Abellio Surrey to serve Kingston. Moving onto the routes, the 481 serves the area bordering Bushy Park, TfL could have served this by diverting something else like 281. It's more an infill rather than a useful service. No-one in Kingston is allocated West Middlesex hospital when Kingston hospital is 2-3 times bigger with more Departments. The K5 isn't used for end to end journeys, the Ham-Kingston service could easily be seperate from the New Malden- Mordon service. It may be better to extend the K4 from the hospital to Ham and lose that section of K5. There really doesn't need to be as many duplicate routes on the Norbiton-Kingston-Surbiton station section. The 467 is a bit of an oddity, it is almost a cross country link connecting Hook area with Epsom (which actually does well with TfL services), the borough of Epsom and Ewell should have been merged with a London borough like Kingston. It is much more London like than Elmbridge borough (Esher, Weybridge, Cobham etc). Overall doesn't surprise me, Elmbridge is a car focused borough, with expensive and busy commuter train service. Buses are almost an irrelevance here. Many schools in the area run their own private coach services so not even a big school demand.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 5, 2016 20:29:15 GMT
Just to demonstrate just how car focused Elmbridge is : one of the places I work in the borough is about 400 yards from a large supermarket. Virtually no-one will walk there. People will drive, park, buy a sandwich and drive back. As I've said, there are few places in the London catchment area that are quite so car-obsessed as Elmbridge.
I do agree, snowman, re. Epsom/Ewell borough merging with/becoming a London borough. That side of the 'Kingston finger' (can't think of a better description!) does considerably better for TfL services compared to the Elmbridge side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 22:04:30 GMT
Thank you. I had missed the 481 for some reason. It could be a candidate but it would more new buses which might be a bit much. I did think about the K5 but don't know it well enough to consider chopping it in bits nor what, if any, carry over there is across Kingston. Otherwise frequency and bus size wise it'd be a decent choice and Epsom Buses always seem to have Optare Solos sloshing around. As you say the other candidates aren't worth considering on cost grounds because frequencies would be too high. I did think about the K4 but envisaged riots taking place if the link to Kingston Hospital was removed. Ironically, thinking about it, RATP running the Unibus services would be well placed to vary one of the Seething Wells routes and extend it out of town if they / the University were minded to copy what other Unibus services have done and open it up to other passengers solely on the Portsmouth Road corridor. TfL could, in theory, object but if it saved them money then why should they? It's not as if there is any TfL competition on that road. My wider ironic thought is that it is a shame that "old fashioned" Metrobus don't exist nowadays. They took a punt of Crawley, Gatwick and Redhill and now have a decent network although it obviously needs some support. There are reasonable ingredients in and around Heathrow, Staines, Walton and further south for them to do a repeat performance but it would need the old management and less control from Go Ahead HQ and I fear those times are now long gone - unfortunately. A Metrobus operation in North Surrey serving Heathrow could have been quite a sight. As a resident of Kingston, currently working in Ashford, I will try and fill in some of the queries. The Heathrow part has been subsidised, there is also a free travel zone which makes a commercial fare difficult, a number of companies run shuttles in the area and locals can usually find a free service to the airport. Stanwell is a relatively poor area, it is a bit isolated, and TfL has a number of services to Staines (117, 290 etc) which compete. Therefore if airport is not going to subsidise, unlikely to work commercially. The Portsmouth Road area doesn't have a big population and the K3 runs one road back from the river and parallels it to Thames Ditton. It is a mystery why the K3 doesn't end at the new roundabout behind Seething Wells (which is a few metres from London boundary). The K3 does serve Claygate, and Hinchley Wood, but these are commuter suburbs with a train to London. Inevitably these sort of areas have at least one car per household, and parking is generally free in the area so buses can't really compete. There is also some fare zone oddities in the area such as Thames Ditton station being in travelcard zone 6, even though it is Surrey. Thames Ditton has the big Esher College, and used to serve many Sixth formers from Richmond (who would get bus to Hampton Court with free zip pass then walk), but in last couple of years many Richmond secondary schools have added their own sixth forms. Esher college catchment has therefore spread and no longer as easy to serve it with a fixed bus route. Kingston was for many years a big shopping area (it still is, but apart from Bentall Centre and John Lewis) the rest of the town centre has become relatively unattractive compared to newer centres elsewhere. Walton and Woking have gained their own shopping centres, so fewer people need buses to Kingston. Traffic congestion on the road via Chessington means places like Leatherhead and Cobham have easier drives to Guildford (where many of the shops are same as Kingston). Kingston itself has become rather congested which makes it unattractive for those outside, The road network has become clogged by excessive traffic lights that seem to work against each other, quite common for one light to turn green as next one turns red. In hundreds of journeys I have never got through the Kingston one way system without encountering at least 2 red lights, they seem to be deliberately timed to hold up traffic. The cross border buses to Kingston inevitably suffer from not taking Oyster card holders. When people paid cash they would take whichever bus came first, now what happens is people get on, find they can't use it, get off again, it therefore makes little sense for Abellio Surrey to serve Kingston. Moving onto the routes, the 481 serves the area bordering Bushy Park, TfL could have served this by diverting something else like 281. It's more an infill rather than a useful service. No-one in Kingston is allocated West Middlesex hospital when Kingston hospital is 2-3 times bigger with more Departments. The K5 isn't used for end to end journeys, the Ham-Kingston service could easily be seperate from the New Malden- Mordon service. It may be better to extend the K4 from the hospital to Ham and lose that section of K5. There really doesn't need to be as many duplicate routes on the Norbiton-Kingston-Surbiton station section. The 467 is a bit of an oddity, it is almost a cross country link connecting Hook area with Epsom (which actually does well with TfL services), the borough of Epsom and Ewell should have been merged with a London borough like Kingston. It is much more London like than Elmbridge borough (Esher, Weybridge, Cobham etc). Overall doesn't surprise me, Elmbridge is a car focused borough, with expensive and busy commuter train service. Buses are almost an irrelevance here. Many schools in the area run their own private coach services so not even a big school demand. The only time the 467 is usually busy is during school journeys. I have always though the K4 could easily be extended down Clayton Road in Hook into Surrey, as the route is relatively short. The K4 did use to run down the northern end of Clayton Road until it was diverted and the circular service was withdrawn about 10 years ago. I think the 418 should be extended from Epsom to Hook via the 467, with the 467 school journeys renumbered. Another easier and better link to Morden from Kingston could be by extending the 406 to Morden via London Road. Kingston is one of the biggest areas for development within the bus industry in London, new links could be made with new routes, and better services to the Central London area could be made, but I feel like TFL don't realise the many opportunities they have to improve the bus services around Kingston, especially the Town Centre, Tolworth and Chessington. Many routes could Link other areas of Surrey with Kingston through Chessington.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 5, 2016 22:57:13 GMT
The only time the 467 is usually busy is during school journeys. I have always though the K4 could easily be extended down Clayton Road in Hook into Surrey, as the route is relatively short. The K4 did use to run down the northern end of Clayton Road until it was diverted and the circular service was withdrawn about 10 years ago. I think the 418 should be extended from Epsom to Hook via the 467, with the 467 school journeys renumbered. Another easier and better link to Morden from Kingston could be by extending the 406 to Morden via London Road. Kingston is one of the biggest areas for development within the bus industry in London, new links could be made with new routes, and better services to the Central London area could be made, but I feel like TFL don't realise the many opportunities they have to improve the bus services around Kingston, especially the Town Centre, Tolworth and Chessington. Many routes could Link other areas of Surrey with Kingston through Chessington. To be fair TfL provide a lavish level of service in Kingston and have improved the 406/418 in recent years and have upped the 65, 481 and K5 recently. If Kingston was not in Greater London it would have nothing remotely like the service it has now. Ditto Bromley and Croydon and Uxbridge and Romford and all those other places that think they're still in a Home County and not London. I appreciate you wish to see a better service but there's no money for better cross boundary services and SCC certainly have no discretionary funding to contribute to TfL's lavish level of service specification. I am waiting for the cuts to come forth on every TfL route into Surrey. Even something like the 467 is grossly over specced for the ridership. If it was a SCC service there would only be school jnys and nothing else. You are certainly never going to see the 418 covering the 467 at a x20 headway! (I assume this is what you were suggesting). I know you are desperate for a bus to Central London but it is never going to happen. The planning assumption is that people will take the train from Kingston or Surbiton because it is faster. If Crossrail 2 ever happens kiss goodbye forever to even having a dream about a bus to Central London.
|
|